judgesonmerit.org

Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts and PMCAction took our campaign for Merit Selection of appellate judges to the State Capitol in Harrisburg today. We held a press conference in the Capitol Rotunda, featuring Senator Jane Earll and Representatives David Steil and Josh Shapiro, all of whom will be sponsoring Merit Selection bills in the state legislature. Senator Anthony Williams, another lead sponsor, wasn’t able to attend the event. The event was moderated by Lynn A. Marks, Executive Director of PMC and PMCAction.

Standing with us to demonstrate support for changing the way we select appellate judges were representatives of the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, Common Cause Pennsylvania, Justice at Stake, ACLU of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association, the Philadelphia Bar Association, the Philadelphia Bar Association, and the Commonwealth Foundation. These organizations are part of a steadily growing coalition in support of judicial selection reform.

We felt great excitement and energy today, and we’re really pleased with the response from the media and the public. If you’d like to see more about the presentation we made, and the benefits of a Merit Selection plan, take a look at the press kit materials.

The Associated Press’ coverage appearing in the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader noted “advocates for replacing Pennsylvania’s system of electing appellate judges with an appointive system launched a new effort Tuesday to convince the Legislature that change is needed.” Also reporting on the press conference were Philadelphia’s The Bulletin and The Pittsburgh Post Gazette, which noted that “State Sen. John Pippy thinks the state needs a better way to select judges for its appellate courts.”

On Tuesday, March 18, 2008, a new Merit Selection initiative for the Pennsylvania appellate courts will be announced by Senators Jane Earll and Anthony Williams and Representatives David Steil and Josh Shapiro , prime sponsors of the legislation. The Philadelphia Inquirer, in a front page article, describes this as a “major push” for Merit Selection.

PMC and PMCAction are very excited about this opportunity to change the way Pennsylvania chooses appellate court judges. Merit Selection will eliminate the influence of money in the selection of judges; give more people the chance to serve as judges, including those without great financial resources or political connections; and make sure that qualifications and experience determine who becomes a judge. This will increase public confidence that our courts are fair and impartial and serve all Pennsylvanians, regardless of financial standing or political affiliation.

In future posts, we will describe the Merit Selection proposal and how it will benefit all Pennsylvanians.

Political watchdog site FactCheck.org kicks off its new Court Watch series by taking a look at the race for a Supreme Court seat in Wisconsin. The report examines some of the inflammatory and misleading claims in campaign materials and third-party advertising. It’s an eye-opening look at what happens when judgeships are treated like any other political office.

Justice Louis Butler and Burnett County Circuit Judge Mike Gableman are running against each other for Butler’s seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The two jurists differ on many issues, but they agree that multi-million dollar ad spending by third-party groups has a huge, and unwelcome, influence on judicial elections.

These groups have to submit to far less oversight of their spending than the campaigns themselves, and they’re expected to spend a lot more on advertising than the candidates. Both candidates have expressed their desire to debate the issues without the distraction of a big third-party ad blitz.

Under a Merit Selection system, multi-million dollar ad campaigns aren’t necessary. The traditional trappings of politics are removed from the process, and each candidate’s experience and ability as a jurist are the most important considerations.

  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is weighing the fate of Municipal Court Judge Deborah Griffin, who is accused of covering up her troubled past. As the Court decides whether to remove her from the bench, two Philadelphia newspapers view the scandal as a clear example of why
Pennsylvania needs merit selection.

Philadelphia Daily News
Philadelphia Inquirer

  In late January, a consumer watchdog group called Texas Watch filed ethics complaints against three Texas Supreme Court Justices. The complaints allege that the justices violated state judicial ethics rules by using campaign contributions to reimburse themselves for personal travel.

  While we’ll need to wait for the results of the investigation, these justices are far from the first to be accused of improperly dipping into a large campaign war chest. Under Merit Selection, judicial campaign contributions, and the temptation to misuse them, are eliminated.

More information about the ethics complaints is available here and here.

  In Minnesota, there’s growing concern about the fairness of a judiciary chosen by partisan elections. With a Merit Selection bill pending in the Minnesota legislature, the Park Rapids Enterprise has published an editorial urging its readers to contact their legislators in support of the plan, “before Minnesota becomes one of the states where money rules in judicial elections.” You can read the entire editorial by following this link. (free, requires registration)

  Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is a long time supporter of judicial reform. Recently, Justice O’Connor wrote an article for Parade magazine which recognized merit selection as an excellent way to protect the judiciary from the influence of politics. The article is available here.

  The West Virginia Supreme Court is embroiled in a major scandal, involving a multi-million dollar election, and multiple recusals from the trial of a big campaign donor. The Huntington Herald-Dispatch sees the whole mess as a clear reason for the state to adopt a Merit Selection system. In their words, “a judiciary independent of elections is the best safeguard against the influence of… money.” Read the complete editorial here.

  Like Pennsylvania, the state of Wisconsin is badly in need of reform for its system of selecting judges. While some are calling for publicly financed elections, one lawyer thinks that Merit Selection is a better alternative. His thoughtful letter to the editor of Madison’s Capital Times is available here.